From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:31:38 +0800
To: "Robert A. Costner" <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Declan pro-cencorship (sorta) (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199802180120.TAA06603@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980220011234.0089a100@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Unfortunately, there's a conflict between real definitions of spam
(you knew it when you sent it, and the recipients knew it too)
and the real-world problems encountered with blocking/canceling spam,
which tends to result in either censorship or under-blocking.
Number of recipients _isn't_ the right criterion at all -
but it's objective enough to agree on, and usually makes a
clear enough boundary between most spammers and most non-spammers.
Rigidly defining numerical limits can also have serious problems,
because there are good messages that get excluded.

The more important number is the number of people deciding
which things are and are not spam - "More than 1" is best,
while "There can be only one" is censorship, either deliberate
or as a side-effect.

At 10:52 PM 2/17/98 -0500, Robert A. Costner wrote:
>At 07:20 PM 2/17/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>>So, we actualy do agree that the number of recipients is irrelevant.
>
>When it comes to spam, the ONLY thing that is relevant is the number of
>recipients, and whether these recipients have offered some form of implicit
>or explicit permission to receive the email.  
...
>Any attempt whatsoever to define spam in terms of content and how liked or
>not liked the message is, interferes with traditional 1st amendment
>definitions of speech, if codified in law or promulgated through (gov't)
>rules.  Ignoring first amendment concerns, any attempt to define spam in
>terms of anything other than numbers causes a severe curtailing of the true
>communication and business purposes of the internet.  


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639